Juneau v. Southeast Auto Sales LLC

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONICA JUNEAU CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-109-BAJ-RLB
SOUTHEAST AUTO SALES LLC
NOTICE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations has
been filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days from the date of
receipt of this notice to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report. A failure to object will constitute a waiver of your
right to attack the factual findings on appeal.
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 19, 2026.
S
Case 3:25-cv-00109-BAJ-RLB Document 16 02/19/26 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONICA JUNEAU CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-109-BAJ-RLB
SOUTHEAST AUTO SALES LLC
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Report and Recommendation is issued sua sponte. This matter is before the Court on
an Order to Show Cause issued on October 27, 2025 directing plaintiff to show cause why the
claim against defendant should not be dismissed under Local Rule 41(b) where no responsive
pleadings have been filed or no default has been entered within sixty days after service of
process, except when Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(3) applies or a dispositive motion is pending. (R.
Doc. 15). A review of the record shows no indication that plaintiff did not receive the order to
show cause.
Plaintiff, both as a pro se litigant and through her prior counsel, has been warned that
dismissal of this action may be warranted pursuant to Local Rule 41(b)(1)(B) for failure to
prosecute if a properly served defendant has failed to timely file an answer and no default is
entered. (R. Docs. 10, 13, 14). Plaintiff’s former counsel advised that plaintiff had terminated his
representation. (R. Doc. 12).
The Court notes that this matter was initiated by Complaint on February 5, 2025 with
summons requested by counsel, then issued by the Clerk of Court on March 11, 2025 and
summons returned executed by March 12, 2025. (R. Docs. 5, 6, 7). Following that date, plaintiff
made no filings with the Court and the response to show cause filed by former counsel indicated
representation was terminated on March 21, 2025, 9 days after summons were returned executed.
Case 3:25-cv-00109-BAJ-RLB Document 16 02/19/26 Page 2 of 3

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(R. Doc. 12). A review of the record reflects that new counsel has not enrolled in this matter,
plaintiff has failed on multiple occasions to comply with Court Orders, and plaintiff has made
little to no effort to prosecute this matter.
As a practical matter, the case cannot proceed if Plaintiff continues to disregard the
Court’s orders. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s recent Order to show cause, and
there is no indication in the record that plaintiff has not received the Court’s prior Ords.
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute effectively deprives the defendant of the opportunity to defend
itself from the allegations made against them.
Although not directly applicable under the current circumstances, Local Rule 41(b)(2)
provides that: “Prior to issuance of a dismissal, notice shall be sent to the plaintiff, and plaintiff
shall be allowed fourteen calendar days from mailing of the notice within which to file evidence
of good cause for plaintiff’s failure to act. If no response is received within the allotted time, the
Court may dismiss the civil action. If a timely response is filed, a District Judge or a Magistrate
Judge may order additional time within which to take action, dismiss the civil action without
prejudice, or issue any other appropriate order.” The Court finds that Plaintiff should be afforded
that same 14-day period to advise the Court if she intends to proceed with this case and explain
why this matter should not be dismissed due to repeated disregard for this Court’s orders. The
timeframe to submit objections to this Report and Recommendation will give that time.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with Court orders.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 19, 2025.
S
Case 3:25-cv-00109-BAJ-RLB Document 16 02/19/26 Page 3 of 3